South Carolina General Assembly
114th Session, 2001-2002
Journal of the Senate

Friday, May 11, 2001

(Local Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator BAUER.

REPORT RECEIVED
JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION

TO:             The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:         Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman

Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE:           May 8, 2001

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,

Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Representative F. G. Delleney, Jr., Vice Chairman
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
John P. Freeman, Esquire
Representative James G. McGee III
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Representative Fletcher N. Smith, Jr.

Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued:   Tuesday, May 8, 2001
Date and Time
Final Report Issued:   Thursday, May 10, 2001, at 10:00 a.m.

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Thursday, May 10, 2001, at 10:00 a.m.

Table of Contents

Introduction                                         1875
Goude, C. Reuben                                     1878
Jefferson, Deadra L.                                   1882
John, Steven H.                                       1890
Maddox, Jr., J. Cordell                                 1898
Nicholson, Jr., J.C.                                     1905
Rivers, Jr., L. Mendel                                 1908
Turner, James A.                                     1916
Whiten, Jr., Charles W.                                 1920
Young, Roger M.                                     1927
Conclusion                                           1935

INTRODUCTION

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any particular judicial race; therefore, for seats in which more than three candidates seek office, the Commission was required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)     survey of the bench and bar;
(2)     SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)     credit investigation;
(4)     grievance investigation;
(5)     study of application materials;
(6)     verification of ethics compliance;
(7)     search of newspaper articles;
(8)     conflict of interest investigation;
(9)     court schedule study;
(10)     study of appellate record;
(11)     court observation; and
(12)     investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues are no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc., is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

A written examination of each candidate's knowledge of judicial practice and procedure is given at the time of a candidate's interview with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of three persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission placed each candidate in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

Staff interviews were expanded to cover all issues related to candidate's qualification for election. The staff then prepared a memorandum on each candidate summarizing the results of staff interviews, highlighting any staff concerns, and providing the score results, bench/bar survey results, and a copy of the candidate's completed ethics questionnaire. This memorandum was forwarded (with all relevant candidate information) to Commission members in advance of the scheduled public hearing date.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to Circuit Court judgeships in the Ninth, Tenth, and Fifteenth Judicial Circuits.

C. Reuben Goude
Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Reuben Goude meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Mr. Goude was born on April 17, 1950. He is 50 years old and a resident of Hemingway, South Carolina. Mr. Goude provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Goude.

Mr. Goude demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Goude reported that he has spent $1,505.00 in campaign expenditures.

Mr. Goude testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Goude testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Goude to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Goude described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"attended more than mandatory hours of CLE."

Mr. Goude reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"paralegal and criminal justice courses at Georgetown, S.C., branch of Horry-Georgetown TEC, for a couple of years."

Mr. Goude reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Goude did not reveal evidence of founded grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Goude did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Goude has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Goude was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Goude reported that he was not aware of his Martindale-Hubbell rating. His rating is "CV."

Mr. Goude reported that he had served in the military in the following capacities:

"USMC, 1968-1972, Sgt., Honorable Discharge.

USAF, 1980-1983, Capt., Judge Advocate General Office, Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Goude appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Goude appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Goude was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

Mr. Goude provided the following as his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   1980-1983, Judge Advocate in USAF, was prosecutor and defense attorney in court-martial cases; also was a claims officer, reviewed contracts, advised personnel on private civil matters such as divorces, wills, etc.

(b)   1984-present, private attorney, solo practice, large practice of divorces, bankruptcies, injuries, wills, adoptions, real estate.

(c)   1984-present, public defender in Georgetown County, S.C., represent all types of General Sessions, and Juvenile Court offenses, from murder to shoplifting."

Mr. Goude reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   bankruptcy court, 2-3 times per month

(b)   State:     in general sessions court about one week per month.   In common pleas court, once each couple of months or so."

Mr. Goude reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     25%

(b)   Criminal:   50%

(c)   Domestic:   25%"

Mr. Goude reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     10%

(b)   Non-jury:   90%"

Mr. Goude provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Goude's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Presently defense counsel in murder case, representing defendant charged with murder of 2 year old boy. Significance is penalty client faces, and amount of preparation involved.

(b)   In 2000, represented a defendant in a murder case, trial lasted about 3 days, significant for penalty client faced, and amount of preparation involved.

(c)   In 2000, represented client, elderly lady, in medical malpractice case against hospital involving client falling and breaking leg in hospital room. Significant for extent of injuries, amount of preparation involved, and my willingness to work for client and take the case all the way through trial.

(d)   In 1999, represented wife in family court contested trial. We offered to settle case. Husband would not settle. We tried the case. We won larger award at trial than we had offered to settle for. Husband now appeals case. Appeals hearing before Court of Appeals is in March 2001. Significance was amount of work I put in, and fact that husband is on his 4th lawyer now, and I'm still the sole lawyer for my client.

(e)   Years ago, represented defendant in murder trial. Trial resulted in not guilty verdict for my client. Significant for penalty client faced, amount of preparation involved, trial lasted about 3 days, and the good work I did in case, and good not guilty result."

The following is Mr. Goude's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"I have appealed or defended a couple of family court appeals, and one or so workers compensation appeals to circuit court. I do not do a lot of civil court appeals."
Mr. Goude reported that he had never held a judicial position.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Goude's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Committee reported that "the committee is of the opinion that Mr. Goude is qualified for the position of circuit court judge and recommends and approves this candidate."

Mr. Goude is not married. He does not have any children.

Mr. Goude reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar;

(b)   Georgetown County Bar;

(c)   off and on I join and quit the ATLA and the SCTLA."

Mr. Goude provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Mount Zion Baptist Church, Hemingway, S.C.

(b)   Georgetown Breakfast Rotary Club, Georgetown, S.C."

Deadra L. Jefferson
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jefferson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Jefferson was born on October 13, 1963. She is 37 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Jefferson provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jefferson.

Judge Jefferson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jefferson reported, "I have spent approximately $100.00 dollars to date on stationary, envelopes, postage and copy costs."

Judge Jefferson testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jefferson testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission did receive a complaint from Mr. Dusty Rhoades, a Charleston attorney, alleging that Judge Jefferson had abused her discretion in failing to grant his motion for Judge Jefferson to recuse herself from a child custody matter. Mr. Rhoades further charged Judge Jefferson with being dilatory as to the issuance of orders, abusive in her behavior toward him, and having engaged in inappropriate ex parte communications. The Commission did not find Mr. Rhoades' testimony, documentation, or the testimony of his witnesses to be persuasive as to any of these allegations.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jefferson described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Family Law (covering a variety of topics);

(b)   Ethics;

(c)   Criminal Law;

(d)   All judicial seminars and other bar seminars which have included a variety of topics including: family law (equitable distribution, custody, child support, attorneys fees, juvenile issues, adoptions, divorces, bankruptcy, and all other issues relevant to the daily operation of Court) evidence, ethics, civil law updates, U.S. Supreme Court updates, and media issues;

(e)   Chief Administrative Judges Seminar, 1999;

(f)   New Judges School, 1996.

"I have consistently satisfied my CLE requirements in excess of the basic hours required."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   "Rules, Rules, Rules" South Carolina Practice and Procedures Update, Presenter on the issue of Family Court Rules, SC Bar, March 20, 1998;

(b)   Speaker/Panel Participant Wiley A. Branton Symposium, National Bar Association, October 24, 1998;

(c)   "Current Issues in Attorney's Fees", Presenter, SC Bar Association, November 6, 1998;

(d)   Recent Developments in Family Law, "Six by Six" CLE Seminar, Presenter, Charleston County Bar Association, December 10, 1998;

(e)   "Adjudication Hearings", Presenter and Contributor to Family Court Judges Juvenile Workbook, SC Association of Family Court Judges, May 20, 1999;

(f)   "Tips from the Bench", Adoption, Presenter, SC Bar Association, February 25, 2000;

(g)   "The Role of the Judge and Guardian ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings" Judges Panel, South Carolina Guardian ad Litem Conference, April 14, 2000;

(h)   "Women, Leadership and the Law", Brown Bag Lunch Panel Participant, SC Women Lawyers Association and College of Charleston Women's Studies Program, September 22, 2000;

(i)   Family Law Update and Tips from the Bench, Presenter, Charleston Lawyers Club, May 2, 2001;

(j)   "The Use of Psychological Evaluations in Juvenile Proceedings", Panel, Children's Law Center, May 18, 2001;

(k)   Business Law Instructor, Trident Technical College Paralegal Program, 1993-1994 School Term."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has published the following:

"I have provided written seminar materials for the courses listed above and these materials have been published by the S.C. Bar as a part of their published seminar materials. I have not published any books or articles."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jefferson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jefferson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jefferson reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jefferson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jefferson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Jefferson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

Judge Jefferson provided the following account of her legal experience:

"(a)   Law Clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Fields of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston, S.C., August 1989 through August 1990. Primary Responsibilities: legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of Orders, scheduling of motions, all tasks required to prepare the Judge and myself for trials/hearings during the term and all other daily tasks as required by the Judge that ensured the smooth operation of Court.

(b)   McFarland and Associates, Attorney, October 1990 through March 1996. Trial practice focusing on the following areas: Domestic Relations, Civil Litigation (all types), Probate Law, Real Estate Law and Criminal Law.

(c)   Resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve February 14, 1996 to the present.

During the past five (5) years I have been a sitting judge. I was elected to the Family Court on February 14, 1996, and have served continuously in that position since April 1, 1996. Prior to my election I enjoyed an active trial practice. My civil court experience consisted of representing the plaintiff in personal injury, wrongful death, excessive force, contract dispute and probate cases. There were also circumstances when my firm represented the defendant in personal injury cases. I have also represented clients in the Master's Court (default matters, partitions, and references). I have also represented clients in business incorporations, trademark matters, domestic cases and real estate transactions. I have also represented the defendant in various contractual disputes. I would estimate that, in the five (5) years prior to my election, I handled over 100 cases that resulted in settlement during litigation but prior to trial. The procedural history of these cases involved filing, serving and answering pleadings, motion practice, roster meetings, pre-trial conferences, and either settlement or jury trial. I would estimate that I tried five (5) to seven (7) cases to jury verdict in the five (5) years prior to my election. I routinely handled the non-jury motions for my firm. I have handled civil matters in the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston, Berkeley and Georgetown. In addition, Family Court matters require application of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence in much the same way as the Circuit Court (i.e. motions to compel, discovery issues, default, amendment of pleadings, joinder of parties, relief from judgment, etc.). These type matters are handled on a daily basis in the Family Court.

During my years in practice I represented both adult and juvenile defendants in criminal matters. I represented adults in both state and federal criminal court. I generally was able to have my clients placed in pre-trial intervention or have the charges dismissed. The vast majority of the remainder of the cases resulted in guilty pleas. I also routinely handled bond hearings for my clients in both state and federal Court. In the past five (5) years as a Family Court Judge, I have presided over proceedings involving a full range of criminal law and procedure in juvenile court. My experience has included qualifying various types of guilty pleas, detention hearings (comparable to bond hearings), waiver hearings, adjudicatory hearings and dispositional hearings. In May of 1999, I was also a contributor to the family court judges manual on juvenile proceedings. I have conducted trials involving a full range of charges from misdemeanors to more serious felonies. The Family Court Judge acts as a jury to find facts and fashion an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the Court. The same constitutional and statutory principles of criminal procedure applicable to adults are applicable to juveniles. As a result, I have had to apply the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence in Family Court in the same manner applicable in the Circuit Court. During an average month in Charleston I would estimate hearing an average of one hundred (100) juvenile cases. On a juvenile court day I will qualify an average of fifteen (15) to twenty (20) pleas.

My experience in the Circuit Court has been broad and varied. Prior to entering the practice of law and upon my graduation from law school I served as law clerk to the Hon. Richard E. Fields (Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit) from 1989 through 1990. During my time as his law clerk my responsibilities included legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of Orders, scheduling of motions, assisting the Judge in qualification of the jury venire, all other tasks required to prepare the Judge and myself for trials/hearings during the term of Court and all other tasks required by the Judge that ensured the smooth operation of the Court. As Judge Fields' law clerk I observed and participated in the Circuit Court on a daily basis. I would estimate that I have observed and participated in Circuit Court and General Sessions proceedings too numerous to count. This position afforded me the unique opportunity to not only observe the system but to be an integral part of its operation."

Judge Jefferson reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   approximately 15 times

(b)   State:     approximately 50-60 times"

Judge Jefferson reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October, 1995.

(a)   Civil:     49%

(b)   Criminal:   2%

(c)   Domestic:   49%"

Judge Jefferson reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a)   Jury:     5%

(b)   Non-jury:   95%"

Judge Jefferson provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Jefferson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Blake v. County of Charleston. This case involved complex (federal) civil rights litigation. It was tried for two (2) weeks and involved many motions and other complex legal issues relating to evidence and the new federal rules. The case also resulted in a mistrial and was later tried a second time for one (1) week. I tried this case with two (2) other lawyers, both of whom had been practicing more than eighteen (18) years. During this process I was treated as an equal and an integral part of the litigation team. I was entrusted with a great deal of responsibility which included arguing motions, examination of witnesses, preparation of motions, and preparation of jury charges. This case challenged many current practices within the Charleston County Police Department. This case caused the Charleston County Police Department to evaluate and change many of their policies and practices.

(b)   Hymes v. Khoury. This case was a simple auto accident which I did not think would be successful. This case taught me the importance of the strategic application of the civil rules of procedure and case law. Although this case took one (1) day to try, the jury deliberated for two (2) days and returned a verdict in favor of my client.

(c)   In Re: The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr., et al. This was a probate court case. The central issue in this case involved the paternity of a two (2) year old minor child of the victim of an automobile fatality. The case involved an intense three (3) day probate trial. The trial involved approximately forty (40) witnesses. It also involved a unique question of law concerning the jurisdictional conflict between the probate and family courts. A favorable ruling was returned by the Probate Judge and the Circuit Court on appeal. In addition, I handled the wrongful death cause of action on behalf of the minor which resulted in a substantial recovery for the minor.

(d)   Ashby v. Ashby. In this case I represented the plaintiff/husband who sought custody of his three (3) children. The Court applied the primary caretaker doctrine in awarding custody to the father. The case also involved issues of equitable distribution, adultery, child support and attorney's fees.

(e)   Thompson v. Polite. This case involved a hotly contested issue of visitation between the plaintiff/husband and his minor son. The defendant/wife was adamant in her refusal to allow visitation. My client was awarded reasonable visitation at the Temporary Hearing of this case. Prior to the Final Hearing the parties submitted to mediation. Through this process they were able to come to an amicable agreement regarding visitation and the rearing of their child. This case reinforced my belief in the value of alternative dispute resolution (mediation) as a method of improving the efficient use of court time and resources.
Prior Judicial Positions:

"I am currently a resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, seat five. My service in this seat began April 1, 1996, and will expire June 30, 2002. I was elected to this position by the General Assembly. The Family Court is a statutory court of limited and specific jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Family Court is set forth in S.C. Code Annotated section 20-7-420, et seq. (i.e. divorce, custody, child support, name changes, juveniles, equitable distribution, adoptions, abuse and neglect, and as further set forth in the statute)."
Judge Jefferson provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   Henggeler v. Hanson, 333 S.C. 598, 510 S.E.2d 722 (S.C. App. 1998), heard November 14, 1998, decided December 14, 1998, Rehearing denied February 27, 1999, Certiorari denied June 24, 1999;

(b)   Todd v. Martin, et al., 96-DR-26-2063;

(c)   Dean v. Pollard, 99-DR-10-2508;

(d)   John and Jane Roe v. Baby Girl N, 97-DR-04-1868;

(e)   Dowling v. Dowling, 98-DR-07-0624."

Judge Jefferson further provided:

"I ran for the seat that was to be vacated by the Hon. Robert R. Mallard in or about January 1995 through March of 1995. I went through the screening process successfully and was found qualified to hold judicial office. I voluntarily withdrew from the process prior to the election. I was subsequently elected to the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 on February 14, 1996."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jefferson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Low Country Citizens Committee found Judge Jefferson to be "qualified and highly recommended."
Judge Jefferson is not married. She does not have any children.

Judge Jefferson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   Charleston County Bar Association;

(c)   S.C. Family Court Judges Association, Legislative Committee 2000 to the present;

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."

Judge Jefferson reported that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Life Center of Charleston Church, Charleston, S.C. Board of Directors, 2001 Co-Founder and Director of Young Women's Ministry "YWCE", 1999-present;

(b)   Charleston Chapter of the Links, Inc., Co-Chair Services to Youth 2000-present;

(c)   Junior League of Charleston, former Strategic Planning Committee, Community Project Development Committee, and Advisory Planning Committee, current President's Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity;

(d)   Junior League Hall of Fame, 1994;

(e)   Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., 1982-present;

(f)   South Carolina Bar Mock Trial Judge, 1997-1999;

(g)   Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc., Distinguished Woman of the 1990's, 1997;

(h)   Top 25 African American Influencers, 1998, South Carolina Business Vision Magazine."

Judge Jefferson further provided:

"I served as law clerk to the Hon. Richard E. Fields of the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit. During my time with him I had the unique opportunity to observe and participate in dozens of trials and hearings and observe a "master jurist." He taught me the importance of "people skills." I learned the role of judge is central to the lawyers and the litigants perception that the system afforded them a fair trial/hearing. In addition, my legal research and writing skills were refined during this process. These skills were further refined during my time on the bench. I count myself fortunate to have found my vocation in life and attempt to walk worthy of that vocation. It is a rare privilege to have been allowed to serve the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court Judge for the past five (5) years.

At the outset I want to state that I love being a Family Court Judge. The last five (5) years have been enjoyable, rewarding and intellectually challenging. I have learned much about the law and human nature. I was taught that the position of a judge should be a continual growth process. I believe that I have continuously grown in my judicial perspective. I still have the same enjoyment for my work as the day I began five (5) years ago. The Family Court has one of the largest caseloads within the judicial system. I believe that I have been a productive member of the Court. Judge Martin's retirement will leave a vacancy on the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit. This vacancy will create the opportunity for intellectual growth while contributing to the court system and the welfare of the community."

Steven H. John
Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. John meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Mr. John was born on December 1, 1953. He is 47 years old and a resident of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. John provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. John.

Mr. John demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. John reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.

Mr. John testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. John testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. John to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. John described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   2000 - 43.75 legal ed. hours and 6.0 ethics hours;

(b)   1999 - 45.02 legal ed. hours and 4.83 ethics hours;

(c)   1998 - 45 legal ed. hours and 4.58 ethics hours;

(d)   1997 - 25.5 legal ed. hours and 5.75 ethics hours;

(e)   1996 - 42.92 legal ed. hours and 9.5 ethics hours."

Mr. John reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. John reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. John did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. John did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. John has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. John was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. John reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. John appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. John appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. John was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

Mr. John described his legal experience as follows:

"LAW CLERK TO THE HONORABLE SIDNEY T. FLOYD, RESIDENT JUDGE, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 1978 - 1980;

PRIVATE TRIAL PRACTICE, 1981 - Present. Opened solo practice in N. Myrtle Beach, S.C. in 1986, having an active trial practice in all of the State Courts. In Civil Court, cases ranging from contracts and automobile accidents to multi-million dollar construction cases; Criminal Court, cases ranging from traffic offenses to court appointed defense in death penalty cases; Family Court, cases from uncontested divorces to all manner of contested family disputes;

COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL REFEREE in the Circuit Court, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over Fifty (50) cases;

CERTIFIED CIRCUIT COURT ARBITRATOR, By South Carolina Supreme Court Board of Arbitration;

COURT APPOINTED MEDIATOR in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over Fifty (50) cases;

COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM in disputed child custody cases in the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in over One Hundred (100) cases;

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH ZONING BOARD, 1993 - Present;

PRO BONO LAWYER FOR HORRY COUNTY DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS AGENCY, 1993 - Present.
Experience:

In criminal court I have handled a variety of cases ranging from traffic and driving offenses to violent crimes involving lethal weapons. The most recent death penalty case I have had was State v. Titus Huggins.

In civil court I have handled many different types of cases, both for plaintiffs and defendants, including construction defect cases, contracts, 1983 actions, wrongful discharge, mechanic and condominium liens and foreclosures, mortgage disputes and foreclosures, auto accidents and personal injury, slander and libel, property and zoning disputes, landlord tenant, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, tort claims act, and unfair trade practices."

Mr. John reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   federal:       Infrequent

(b)   state:     Over the last five (5) years in Circuit Court and Family Court I have had a variety of matters, whether by motion, uncontested action, non-jury trial, or jury trial, in virtually every week that there has been Court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit"

Mr. John reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   civil:     40%

(b)   criminal:   20%

(c)   domestic:   40%"

Mr. John reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   jury:     30%

(b)   non-jury:   70%"

Mr. John provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. John's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Mariners Pointe Homeowners Association v. U.D.C.-Universal Development, d/b/a U.D.C. Homes Limited Partnership vs. over thirty (30) Third Party Defendants, and Paul Martin and Be Bushong, Individually and as Class Representatives v. U.D.C.-Universal Development, d/b/a U.D.C. Homes Limited Partnership - 1990 - 1996.

As the title indicates, this was an extremely complex construction case. The main action by the Association dealt with the damages to the common elements at the Mariners Pointe Condominium and Marina project. The construction issues involved roofing damage, settlement of the marsh in areas near the buildings, pool defects, marina design defects, porch and deck defects, fire wall defects, spoilage basin design defects, ventilation defects, irrigation system defects, parking lot design defects, sighting defects, and a host of other general construction problems, many of which violated the standard building code. The class action dealt with interior unit damages suffered by the individual owners.

I developed the case from its initial interviews through development of all of the necessary experts, numerous depositions and production of documents, and upon the eve of trial, through the use of mediation, this case was eventually settled to the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs in the multi-million dollar range.

(b)   State v. Titus Huggins, 1996. This was a death penalty case. I was court appointed with a public defender for Horry County to provide the defense. There was an initial trial of the first phase, during which Mr. Huggins was convicted armed robbery and murder with a pistol. The Defense presented Motions to the Trial Judge regarding juror improprieties, which led the Court to declare a mistrial. There was a retrial in which I again participated as one (1) of the two (2) defense counsels for Mr. Huggins, in which Mr. Huggins was again convicted of armed robbery and murder of a shopkeeper, and subsequently received the death penalty. This matter is currently on appeal.

(c)   North Carolina Federal Savings and Loan Association v. DAV Corporation, et al., 1986 - 1993. I was retained to file a mortgage foreclosure action on certain ocean view property, upon which there had been a failed condominium project. Before trial, due to motions for a jury trial, made by one (1) of the Defendants on certain of his counter-claims, this matter was the subject of an appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and thereafter, Certiorari was granted and an opinion issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which helped to define legal and equitable claims. This matter was also placed in the purview of the Bankruptcy Court for a period of time due to actions of a Defendant, which caused certain filings to remove the matter from the Bankruptcy Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff went into receivership and was taken over by an agency of the Federal Government, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which caused the matter to be transferred to Federal Court. Eventually we were able to successfully convince the Federal Court to issue a Summary Judgment Order granting Foreclosure. Besides the issues decided on Appeal, as reported in 294 S.C. 27, 362 S.E.2d 308, and 298 S.C. 514, 381 S.E.2d 903, this case also epitomized the difficulties that can be encountered and necessarily overcome in what may appear to be initially a relatively straight forward matter.

(d)   State v. Limme Arther, 1985 - 1988. This was a death penalty case. I was Court appointed, with another counsel, to provide the defense for Mr. Arther, who was ultimately convicted of armed robbery and murder with an ax. At Mr. Arther's first trial, he was convicted and given the death sentence; however, due to objections made by myself and other trial counsel, because of improper arguments and statements by the Solicitor, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence and returned it for new sentencing hearing. At the second trial of the death penalty phase, due to the intervention of Attorney David Bruck, who was also appointed as defense counsel for Mr. Arther, this matter was tried only by a Circuit Judge, without a jury, over my objections, and the death sentence was then imposed. The Supreme Court reviewed this and returned the matter for the imposition of a life sentence. This case was reported in 290 S.C. 291, 350 S.E.2d 187 (1986), and 296 S.C. 495, 374 S.E.2d 291 (1998)

(e)   McCormac v. The Town of Pawleys Island, et al. I was the Court Appointed Special Referee in this matter. This case involved an Appeal from the decision of the Town of Pawleys Island Zoning Board of Appeals, in which that Board granted a variance for the construction of a residence. As the non-jury trial judge in this matter, I reversed the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town and the other parties appealed this matter to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and in an unpublished opinion, number 95-UP-077, filed March 23, 1995, my decision was upheld and my Order was adopted as the decision on Appeal.

(f)   Horry County v. The Insurance Reserve Fund, a division of the S.C. Budget & Control Board, an agency of the State of S.C., Op. No. 3301, S.C. Ct. of Appeals, 2/20/01. I was the Court appointed Special Referee in this matter. It involved a declaratory judgment action filed by Horry County against the Insurance Reserve Fund whereby the County was asking to be indemnified for damage payments it paid in other actions regarding a country operated coquina mine. My decision finding the Insurance Reserve Fund contractually liable under a tort liability insurance policy was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the above referenced decision."

The following is Mr. John's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   State v. Sapps, 295 S.C. 484, 369 S.E.2d 145 (1988). I filed this appeal on behalf of a defendant who was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnaping. The main issue on appeal was whether or not it was proper for the Solicitor, in cross examination, to ask the Defendant whether other witnesses were lying, thereby forcing the Defendant to attack the veracity and truthfulness of other witnesses, thereby improperly invading an area to be determined by the Jury. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction and returned the matter for new trial. Later this party pled guilty to lessor charges, more reflective of his limited involvement in the crime.

(b)   Kincaid v. The Landing Development Corporation, et al., 289 S.C. 89, 344 S.E.2d 869 (Ct. App., 1986). This was a significant construction case that I developed for trial, along with John R. Clarke, Esquire, and upon a successful verdict being rendered to our client, an appeal was taken by the Defendants. The verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeals, and certain important areas in construction litigation were clarified by this decision, including qualification of expert witnesses, sufficiency of damage information, and liability of interrelated corporations. I wrote the appeal brief in this matter and participated in the oral arguments with John R. Clarke, Esquire.

(c)   Roundtree Villas Association, Inc. v. 4701 Kings Corp., et al., 282 S.C. 415, 321 S.E.2d 46 (1984). This was a construction case which I developed for trial with John R. Clarke, Esquire, and upon a successful jury verdict, an appeal was taken by the Defendants. The Supreme Court returned the matter for a new trial, in which the Plaintiff was again successful. This matter is significant because it did extend liability when a lending agency undertakes to make repairs on a building it previously only participated in by financing. There is then a common law duty which arises to use due care in the repairs, thereby making the lender liable for any damages caused by negligent repairs. I wrote the appeal brief in this matter and participated in the oral arguments with John R. Clarke, Esquire.

(d)   Piedmont Aviation, Inc. v. Quinn, 294 S.C. 502, 366 S.E.2d 31, (Ct. App) 1988. I was retained to write the appeal brief for the Plaintiff in this matter by the trial counsel, and they used these arguments I developed at oral arguments. The jury verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeals which helped define the two issue rule.
Note: for the above cases, no trial briefs are available. Since all of these matters have been concluded, the trial briefs were destroyed as extraneous and are no longer available. Therefore, for the last Appeal I am listing the case of:

(e)   Baldwin Construction Co., Inc. (Respondent) v. Barry P. Graham and Terry D. Graham, d/b/a The Auto Tech (Appellants), which is currently on appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, under Docket Number 98-CP-26-3362. This is an appeal before final decision alleging the trial court erred in denying Appellants Motion for a Jury Trial and their Motion to Amend their Answer. Attached please find a copy of my Final Brief of Appellant."

Mr. John provided that in regards to unsuccessful candidacies:

"In 1998 I filed as a candidate for Seat #2 of the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. I was qualified as one (1) of the three (3) candidates by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission for this seat. At Large Judge Paula Thomas was the eventual successful candidate. In the fall of 1998, I filed as a candidate for At Large Seat #1 of the Circuit Court of the State of South Carolina. I withdrew as a candidate for this seat which the Honorable John Milling won by acclamation. In 1999 I filed as a candidate for At Large Seat #8 of the Circuit Court of the State of South Carolina. I was found qualified, but not selected by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The Honorable Kenneth G. Goode won this seat by acclamation."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. John's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Committee reported "the committee is of the opinion that Mr. John is well qualified for the position of circuit court judge and recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."

Mr. John is married to Susan Watts John. He has one child, Nicolas Blake John, born June 14, 2000.

Mr. John reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, 1978 - present;

(b)   Horry County Bar Association, 1978 - present."

Mr. John provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Rotary International and local North Myrtle Beach Club, 1987 - present. I have been a member of our local club Board of Directors and held numerous committee chairmanships. I am also a Paul Harris Fellow and have received the perfect attendance award ever since joining in 1987;

(b)   Optimist International and local North Myrtle Beach Club, 1987 - 1996. I was a member of the Board of Directors and held various officer positions;

(c)   Citadel Alumni Association and Citadel Brigadier Club, both 1975 - present;

(d)   Horry County Citadel Club, 1980 - present;

(e)   U.S.C. Alumni Association and U.S.C. Gamecock Club, 1978 - present."

J. Cordell Maddox, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED[1] AND NOMINATED

[1] Mr. Maddox will not meet the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge unless the elections are held on or after November 7, 2001. According to S.C. Code Ann. 2-19-70, "(A) No member of the General Assembly may be elected to a judicial office while he is serving in the General Assembly nor shall that person be elected to a judicial office for a period of one year after he either: (1) ceases to be a member of the General Assembly; or (2) fails to file for election to the General Assembly in accordance with Section 7-11-15."

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Mr. Maddox was born on June 14, 1958. He is 42 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Mr. Maddox provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Maddox.

Mr. Maddox demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Maddox reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Maddox testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Maddox testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Maddox to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Maddox described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"08/10/95   1995 Annual Convention- S.C.T.L.A.

09/05/95   The New South Carolina Rules of Evidence

10/10/95   Client Relations LEPR Series

01/2-6/96   Law Education Institute Civil Litigation Conference

01/02/96   1996 Winter CLE Conference - Civil

08/08/96   1996 Annual Conference - S.C.T.L.A.

08/14/97   1997 Annual Convention-S.C.T.L.A.

11/08/97   Better Client Relations the Key to Success

12/04/98   S.C.T.L.A. Auto Torts

08/13/98   1998 Annual Convention-S.C.T.L.A.

09/27/98   1998 Annual SC Solicitors Conference

12/11/98   SC Association of Counties

05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference

10/03/99   1999 Annual SC Solicitors Association Conference

11/12/99   SC Ethics Seminar

11/15/99   Judge Ross Anderson's Ethics Seminar

12/17/99   10 Things You Need to Know

10/00     ADR Seminar

12/02/00   Auto Torts

12/20/00   Ethics Update"

Mr. Maddox reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Business Law at Central Wesleyan College (now known as Southern Wesleyan University) for several years during the late 1980's. I was an adjunct professor of business law teaching undergraduate courses in general business law at Central Wesleyan College.

(b)   1998 Family Judges Conference - Legislative Update

(c)   1999 Family Judges Conference - Legislative Update

(d)   1999 South Carolina Solicitors Conference - Legislative."

Mr. Maddox reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Maddox did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Maddox did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Maddox has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Maddox was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Maddox reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

The Commission noted that Mr. Maddox had the reputation of being a forthright and honest legislator and they would expect him to be the same on the bench.
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Maddox appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Maddox appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Maddox was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.

Mr. Maddox reported that his legal experience since law school has been the following:

"From 1986 until 1992 I was an Associate and then Partner at Jones, Spitz, Moorehead, Baird & Maddox in Anderson, South Carolina. My practice was predominantly a civil practice with some small amounts of real estate and criminal matters.
From 1992 until 2001 I have been a Partner with the Law Firm of Glenn, Haigler, Maddox & McClain. My practice continues to be predominantly a civil practice with some criminal work.
From 1996 until 2000, in addition to practicing law, I served in the South Carolina House of Representatives representing District 9 in Anderson County.
Criminal Matters:
(a)   State v. Young - I was appointed co-counsel in the penalty phase of the State v. Young. This case involved re-trial of the death penalty phase of a previously tried case. The case required the picking of a jury in Lancaster County and the approximate one-week trial of the penalty phase.

(b)During the past I represented a defendant in a criminal case in which my client was charged with engaging a child for sexual performance, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. This case involved the issue of the admission of video taped evidence. The case was dismissed.

(c)I handled a criminal case in 2000 in which my client was charged with grand larceny. The issues were whether or not the defendant and her co-defendant were guilty of stealing $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 worth of jewelry and personal items from the home of an acquaintance. The defendant pled guilty.

(d)Currently I am representing a defendant who has been charged with numerous counts of burglary and breaking and entering. The case is currently awaiting trial or other disposition.

(e)I have also been involved, in a peripheral manner, with several criminal cases handled by my law partners including a murder case in which the death penalty was at issue and a case involving a guilty plea for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

(f)I have represented, either as the attorney or as the guardian ad litem, several juvenile defendants and adult defendants in the Family Court. The charges have ranged from criminal domestic violence to various degrees of child abuse and neglect.

While my background in criminal matters is less than my experience in civil matters, I feel that I could compensate for the lack of experience. I am aware of and keep abreast of developments in the case law regarding criminal matters. It is my intention to continue to keep abreast of criminal case law developments and to step up my observation of criminal court pending election to the bench.
Civil Matters:

My primary practice in the last several years in civil court has been as a representative of the plaintiff. In the past I have also represented defendants including corporations, individuals, and financial institutions. In the past five years my trial experience has included:

(a)   Two complicated medical malpractice cases. One case involved the alleged negligence of a surgeon leading to the death of the plaintiff after laparoscopic surgery. This case was tried in Chester County. Both plaintiff and defendant utilized experts from throughout the country and the case involved many elements common to most medical malpractice and other tort actions. The case was settled after trial began and after opening statements and the call of two of the plaintiff's witnesses. I was co-counsel on that case with an out of state attorney and a local attorney who had associated me.

Additionally, I have tried a medical malpractice case in Richland County involving obstetrical malpractice. The case was tried for approximately eight days and involved fairly complicated issues of causation.

(b)   I was co-counsel with my law partner in a dental malpractice case tried for three days in Anderson County involving the issue of malpractice resulting from a broken jaw during a dental procedure.

(c)   Currently I am involved as co-counsel in a nationwide class action filed in Federal Court in Anderson County. This case involves the issue of fraudulent interest computation by a lending institution. The case has been filed and the nationwide class has been certified. The trial is expected in October 2001.

(d)   I have been associated with co-counsel in another Federal Class Action case involving the allegations of fraudulent recordation of credit information. That case should be tried some time in the late fall of 2001.

(e)   I have, in addition to the above, handled numerous automobile accident cases that have settled prior to trial.

(f)   Currently I am representing a civil defendant in a breach of contract action that has been set for trial in June of 2001.

(g)   I have also represented several physicians as personal attorney in malpractice cases and in other general litigation matters.

(h)   I am currently involved innumerous litigation matters including a case based upon negligent construction of a subdivision and the subsequent denial of a payment bond. The complaint has been filed; the trial has not been set.

(i)     I am also currently representing a large homeowners' association in a lawsuit against adjoining homeowners regarding the application of restrictions to the adjoining landowner's property. The case was tried and a verdict was granted to my clients. The case involved the application of restrictions to property and the interpretation and restoration of the restrictions and by-laws of the homeowners' association. The case is currently on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court."

Mr. Maddox reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal: 1996 - 2000 - Infrequent. 2000-2001 - Frequently. I am currently involved in two Federal Class Actions that have required numerous appearances in District Court.

(b)   State: I have appeared in State Court either in Civil, Criminal or Domestic matters on average twice a week for the past 5 years."

Mr. Maddox reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     30%

(b)   Criminal:   10%

(c)   Domestic:   60%"

Mr. Maddox reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     10%

(b)   Non-jury:   90%"

Mr. Maddox provided that he most often served as both co-counsel and sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Maddox's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Young. I was appointed co-counsel in the sentencing phase of Kevin Dean Young. The state had obtained a guilty verdict and sentence of death in a prior trial. The case was remanded to the circuit court for the retrial of the penalty phase only. A jury was selected in Lancaster County and brought to Anderson for the trial. Every case potentially involving the death penalty has significant ramifications not only for the defendant but the community, attorneys and other court personnel. Apart from its nature, the case was significant from a personal legal perspective because it exposed me to the complicated legal issues associated with a criminal trial in general and a death penalty trial in particular.

(b)   Linda A. Massingale, Ruth I. Bickel, Denise M. McTigue, Marie A. Pacifico, and all other similarly situated v. The Money Store, Inc., TMS Mortgage, Inc., and John Does 1-100. This is an ongoing case in Federal Court. The case involves a large nationwide class action against the defendant. The class has been certified by the District Court and two appeals have been taken to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. We've prevailed on both appeals and are now awaiting trial in April or May of 2001. The case is significant in that it involves unique issues of interest computation and the possibility of up to 20,000 class members seeking damages against the defendant. I am co-counsel in this case with several out of state attorneys.

(c)   Laughridge v. Parkinson, et al. This case was a medical mal-practice case involving complicated issues of causation and damage. The lawsuit was on behalf of the minor child injured at birth. The case was tried initially in Greenville County, South Carolina, over a period of approximately 22 weeks. After deliberating for a day and a half, a mistrial was declared because of a hung jury. Approximately one year later the case was re-tried for approximately 10 days and the jury returned a verdict for $5,000,000.00. Prior to the 1st trial the Circuit Court granted partial Summary Judgment for the hospital. I was involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court which resulted in a ruling that the abolition of the doctrine of charitable immunity was prospective in application only. The case was significant because almost every possible evidentiary scenario was presented during both trials.

(d)   Kneale v. Bonds, 452 S.E.2d 840; 317 S.C.262, SC Court of Appeals 1994. This case was significant in that it involved interpretation of the covenants of a horizontal property regime and a mandatory injunction for the removal of a structure. I represented 12 homeowners who sought a mandatory injunction to have a structure removed from the regime property. After an approximate 3-day non-jury trial, the circuit court ruled in the favor of the defendants. On appeal, the Supreme Court found in favor of my clients and issued an order requiring defendants to remove a previously constructed building on the property. The case is significant in that it involved interpretation of legal documents as well as equitable principals of law.

(e)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Broome, 413 S.E.2d 835, SC 48 and SC (SC 1992) I was appointed to represent Mrs. Broome in a DSS termination of parental rights action. Mrs. Broome was a schizophrenic who opposed the termination of her rights. Subsequent to the trial, Ms. Broome asked me to appeal and then disappeared. After perfecting her appeal, I filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court and was asked to do a brief and argue certain elements of her appeal. The case was argued before the South Carolina Supreme Court and has been cited many times by the Court as an example of one of the standards for termination of parental rights in South Carolina."

The following is Mr. Maddox's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   In the matter of Marshal - S.C. Supreme Court - 03/23/98, 498 S.E.2d 869, 331 S.C. 514 (S.C. 1998)

(b)   Laughridge v. Parkinson (co-counsel) - 04/01/91, 403 S.E.2d 120, 304 SC 51 (S.C. 1991)

(c)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Broome - 01/13/92, 413 S.E.2d 835, 307 SC 48 (S.C. 1992)

(d)   Kneale v. Bonds, et al., 425 S.E.2d 840; 317 S.C.262, SC Court of Appeals 1994"
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Maddox's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee found Mr. Maddox to be "qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria established by the Commission."

Mr. Maddox is married to Victoria Tobin Maddox. He has three children: Jesse Cordell Maddox, III, age 15; Brett Garland Maddox, age 12; and Jacob Hunter Maddox, age 6.

Mr. Maddox reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Anderson County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Association;

(d)   American Trial Lawyer's Association;

(e)   American Bar Association."

Mr. Maddox provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Rotary Club of Anderson;

(b)   YMCA - member of Board of Directors from 1984 to present; currently ex-officio member of the Board.

(c)   Past and Present member of S.C. Bar House of Delegates

(d)   Hospice of the Upstate."

Julius C. Nicholson, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Nicholson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Circuit Court judge.

Judge Nicholson was born on September 30, 1942. He is 58 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Nicholson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Nicholson.

Judge Nicholson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Nicholson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Nicholson testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Nicholson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Nicholson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Nicholson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Seminars with SC Bar;

(b)   Circuit Court Judge's Associate Meeting & S.C. Judicial Conference;

(c)   University of Nevada Judicial College - 2 weeks & took General Jurisdiction Course."

Judge Nicholson reported that he has taught law-related courses at the South Carolina Solicitors Conference.

Judge Nicholson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Nicholson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Nicholson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Nicholson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Nicholson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Nicholson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Judge Nicholson provided that he was elected to the following public office other than his judicial office:

"Elected to County Council in Orangeburg County 1976-1982."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Nicholson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Nicholson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Nicholson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Judge Nicholson reported that his legal experience since law school as follows:

"During the twenty-five years I practiced law, I practiced in all areas of law.

Fogle & Watson - 1973; Fogle & Nicholson - 1975; J.C. Nicholson -1975-1978; Nicholson & Williams - 1978-1981; Assistant Solicitor in Greenville- 1982; Epps & Krause - 1982-1985; Epps, Krause & Nicholson - 1985-1994; Epps, Nicholson & Stathakis 1995-3/1/99; Circuit Court Judge 3/1/99 until present."

Judge Nicholson provided that he has the following judicial experience:

"Circuit Court 3-1-99 to present with unlimited trial court jurisdiction for trials in South Carolina except for cases which S.C. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Nicholson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee reported, "we find that Judge Nicholson is qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria established by the Commission."

Judge Nicholson is married to Janet Elaine Nicholson. He has five children: Amanda Nicholson, age 31, School Teacher; Stacy Nicholson, age 30, Captain in Air Force; J.C. Nicholson, III, age 26, Junior at USC Law School; Lara Nicholson, age 22, Housewife; and John Beeks, age 23, Senior at Clemson University.

Judge Nicholson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Anderson County Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Bar- member of the House of Delegates (1995-1997);

(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association."

Judge Nicholson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"Rotary."

L. Mendel Rivers, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Rivers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Rivers was born on October 6, 1947. He is 53 years old and a resident of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Judge Rivers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1972.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Rivers.

Judge Rivers demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Rivers reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.

Judge Rivers testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Rivers testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Rivers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations; however, his answers did indicate some concerns in the areas of substantive law and evidence.

The Commission's investigation showed Judge Rivers could improve the expediency with which he disposes of his caseload.

The Commission also found Judge Rivers could improve in the areas of judicial temperament with respect to witnesses and litigants.

Judge Rivers described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

(a)   2000-Taught Child Custody Seminar sponsored by NBI and attended Family Court Seminar sponsored by Chas. Co. Bar Assn.;

(b)   1999-Had excess hours from 1998;

(c)   1998-Attended Winning Legal Negotiations sponsored by S.C. Bar and was certified as Family Court Mediator by SCCMDR (40-hour course).

In addition, Judge Rivers states: "In the past five years, I have enjoyed CLEs on Defending DUI cases and on Substance Abuse & Ethics, and I have taught Effective Family Law Practice, sponsored by NBI. I have always maintained full compliance with all CLE requirements."

Judge Rivers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

Legal Environment of Business and Business Law at the College of Charleston, 1981-c. 1986, and Effective Family Law Practice, sponsored by NBI.

Judge Rivers reported that he was a published weekly columnist for the Charleston Post and Courier from 1985 until 1993.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Rivers did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Rivers did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Rivers has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Rivers was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Rivers reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Rivers appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Rivers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Rivers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1972.

Judge Rivers described his legal experience as follows:

"1972-1973-General practice of law as sole practitioner, with emphasis on plaintiff's litigation, real estate, domestic relations, and criminal defense.

1973-1974-Associate with Young, Clement & Rivers (now Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale), Charleston, S.C., in litigation department, handling mainly insurance defense.

1974-1975-General practice of law as sole practitioner, with emphasis on plaintiff's litigation, real estate, domestic relations, and criminal defense.

1975-1978-Partner in Tillman & Rivers. General practice.

1978-1993-Served as Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, resident judge, Charleston County.

1993-2000-General practice of law as sole practitioner, with emphasis on plaintiff's litigation and domestic relations.

2000-2001-Partner in Rivers & Grogan, LLP. Strong emphasis on domestic relations and plaintiff's litigation.

I divide my career into three phases: 1) the early years, when I had the privilege of many legal arrangements and learned to practice the whole spectrum of law as an employee, as a partner, and as a sole practitioner; 2) the judgeship years, when I learned to think deeply about the law and gained true respect for the amazing machine which is our legal system; and 3) the post-judgeship years, when I came into my own as an attorney and learned both how to think like an experienced lawyer and how to make a living!
Legal Experience:

Criminal - I have significant experience in handling adult criminal charges in the Magistrate's Court and juvenile criminal charges in Family Court. I have handled DUIs, drug possession, criminal domestic violence, and assault charges. At the General Sessions Court level, I successfully handled a DUI (Second) charge for a significantly impaired client and successfully defended a probation revocation charge for another client. In another matter, I bargained with the federal prosecutor and was able, through careful negotiation, to persuade the prosecutor to drop all charges against my client who was accused of bank fraud in the Charleston phone-sex scandals. To my knowledge, that client is the only defendant in the bank-fraud-phone-sex scandals to emerge with all charges dismissed. In addition, I have fifteen (15) years' experience on the Family Court bench, many of which were devoted to terms of Juvenile Court, where I handled every type of criminal case from petty thievery to murder.

Civil - Although I have a strong emphasis on domestic relations in my practice, I do not shy away from Circuit Court cases and believe I have been successful in handling them. Recently, I tried two plaintiffs' cases before juries in the Charleston and Orangeburg Counties Courts of Common Pleas with substantial verdicts. I tried a major personal-injury case involving a slip and fall in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas and was successful in getting the case to the jury against the remaining two defendants. Unfortunately, the jury felt sympathetic for the defendants! (Despite that set back, I was able to settle the case against two other defendants for substantial amounts.) I have both settled and tried civil cases in the Court of Common Pleas and feel at home there.

I have handled civil cases as simple as fender-benders and as complicated as a slip and fall with five Defendants, including a famous rock star, without assistance or co-counsel. I have deliberately chosen to handle those cases which appear both interesting and lucrative, because I enjoy new challenges. Family Court taught me a great deal about human nature and the essential equality of man. Circuit Court has the potential to take that knowledge to the next level, because of the intellectual challenges and the complexity of the law usually not available in Family Court.

My personality is such that I thrive on an intellectual and legal challenge. As important as Family Court is, the judge is unfortunately required to apply very familiar law to constantly recurring, similar facts. At some point, the intellectually curious become bored. After fifteen (15) years on the Family Court bench, I lost my enthusiasm to perform the same job over and over each day. I gave myself the freedom to resign from the Family Court bench and pursue other interests, which I believe greatly benefited me.

I have been privileged to serve in the General Assembly, as an attorney, and as a judge. I am old enough to have achieved a great deal of wisdom and young enough to have the energy to put it to excellent use. I believe I have a combination of legislative, judicial, legal, and life experiences possessed by few other candidates."

Judge Rivers reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   federal:   Two cases in the last five years, one civil and one criminal. Two court appearances.

(b)   state:     Appear approximately three - five times per week in Family Court, twice per month in Magistrate's Court, and once per month in Circuit Court."

Judge Rivers reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   civil:     10%

(b)   criminal:   5%

(c)   domestic:   85%"

Judge Rivers reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   jury:     15%

(b)   non-jury:   85%"

Judge Rivers provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Rivers' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Heape v. Heape, 335 S.C. 420, 517 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App. 1999). Heape was a complicated, lengthy divorce trial which involved unsuccessful mediation, many days of trial, perjury, efforts to intimidate by extraneous lawsuits, and a voluminous evidentiary presentation. The result was very successful at the trial level. Not only was the adversary required to pay substantial attorney's fees to my client, but so was her paramour! Unfortunately, in a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that paramours may not be required to pay substantial attorney's fees beyond the minimal efforts to cause them to be restrained from interfering with the marriage.

(b)   Maggy v. City of North Charleston, et al. Maggy involved a young woman who was badly injured when she slipped and fell at the North Charleston Coliseum during a Tom Petty concert. We chose to sue the city, its hired coliseum management, the beer vendor, the coliseum architect, and Tom Petty himself. (All involved, including defense counsel, earnestly hoped that Defendant Petty would be required to testify at length in deposition, or at least sing a song! Unfortunately, he was dismissed as a party.) The case involved endless depositions, visits to the accident scene, and delving into the minutiae of coliseum construction. The case was settled against two defendants and tried against the remainder.

(c)   Rivers v. Unisun. Rivers involved uninsured motorist coverage and the stacking of liability policies, as well as a suit by a minor brought under the shadow of a looming Statute of Limitations. The real issue was damages and the extent of permanent impairment of a young woman. The case was difficult to try, because it involved bringing forth doctors from various parts of the state and had to be tried in a county inconvenient for most individuals concerned.

(d)   Walsh v. Walsh. Walsh was the domestic case which had it all: Fight over custody, fight over visitation, fight over sexually aberrant behavior, fight over support, fight over property, fight over enforcement. Walsh illustrates the dilemma of having to fight over every issue, as juxtaposed against the necessity to protect one's client and to stand up against intimidation. While the final result in Walsh was very favorable to the client, the client was understandably worn out by the struggle, as was her lawyer.

(e)   Freedland v. MUSC. Freedland was an administrative hearing before the Honor Counsel of the Medical College of MUSC, in which the client was accused of violating an honor code which was poorly drafted to the point of almost ceasing to exist. My task as attorney for the accused was first, to inform a group of self-important senior medical students that their honor code was legally insufficient to convict anybody of anything and secondly, to convince them that my client was entirely innocent of wrongdoing in any case. Freedland illustrates the importance of keeping one's "eyes on the prize" and making certain that the client gets what he needs, rather than the lawyer getting notoriety for a flamboyant lawsuit. By negotiation, we achieved for the client what the litigation process could not."

The following is Judge Rivers' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Heape v. Heape -- Court of Appeals -- April 26, 1999 -- 335 S.C. 420, 517 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App. 1999)

(b)   Scott v. Schneider-Court of Appeals - Decided 2000 -- Unpublished

(c)   Taylor v. Taylor-Court of Appeals - Decided 1999 -- Unpublished

(d)   Brown v. Brown -Court of Appeals - Decided 1996 -- Unpublished

(e)   McMillan v. Mid-Carolina Pools, Inc. -Court of Appeals - Decided 2001 - Unpublished"

Judge Rivers stated the following about his judicial service:

"I served as Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, from 1978 until 1993. That position is elected by the General Assembly, and the Family Court has exclusive civil jurisdiction over divorce, annulment, validity of marriage, custody of children, child support, alimony, visitation, distribution of marital property and debt, and awards of attorneys fees in connection therewith. It has exclusive criminal and status-offense jurisdiction over juveniles."

Judge Rivers described five of his most significant orders or opinions as follows:

"(a)   Marsh v. Marsh, 313 S.C. 42, 437 S.E.2d 34 (1993) and Marsh v. Marsh, 308 S.C. 304, 417 S.E.2d 638 (Ct.App. 1992), cert. gr. 1993. I was the first Family Court Judge to rule on, and to be appealed from, the issue of whether the Family Court may equitably distribute personal-injury awards accrued during the marriage. I ruled in the affirmative and was affirmed twice, by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court.

(b)   Charleston County Dept. of Social Services v. Father, Stepmother, and Mother, 317 S.C. 283, 454 S.E.2d 307 (1995). Father, Stepmother was an extraordinarily painful child abuse case in which the natural mother, who came from a prominent family, was accused of oral sex (fellatio) with her young son. Trial was difficult and prolonged. I permitted the son to testify, because I believed his testimony was the only way to get near the truth. His testimony persuaded me that the abuse did occur and that his mother was the perpetrator. Shortly after my ruling, I resigned from the bench (to run for Congress). The mother hired new counsel and sought a new trial by means of a Rule 63, SCRCP motion. Judge Mallard granted her motion, and he was reversed by the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court discussed at length my rulings and Judge Mallard's reasons for granting a new trial. The Supreme Court essentially affirmed my rulings and found Judge Mallard's reasoning inadequate.

(c)   Eichman v. Eichman, 285 S.C. 378, 329 S.E.2d 764 (1985). A divided Supreme Court affirmed my ruling that a previous support and visitation order was res judicata as to whether the husband in a later divorce action could claim that he was not the father of the children who were the subject of the previous order and therefore could request paternity tests. The issue is important, because many fathers (and husbands) claim to learn, years after consenting to pay child support, that they are not in fact the fathers of the children in question. Interestingly, two justices dissented, reasoning that recent advances in paternity testing suggest that the doctrine of res judicata should not be applied under those facts.

(d)   Frasier v. McClair, 282 S.C. 491, 319 S.E.2d 350 (Ct.App. 1984). This was a reversal. I believed that an adoption had been brought solely to obtain Social Security benefits and therefore denied the adoption. Judge Curtis Shaw of the Court of Appeals wrote a lengthy opinion explaining that my reasons were unsupported by the evidence and that, in any event, such an improper purpose for the adoption, if it existed, would not permit the Family Court to deny the adoption, as long as the adoption was in the best interests of the minor child. The decision was important to educate bench and bar as to the standards for granting adoptions.

(e)   Spartanburg County Dept. of Social Services v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 370 S.E.2d 872 (1988). This case proved to be an important lesson in humility for me. I was assigned to a term in Spartanburg County. The Family Court Judges there had complained that local attorneys were deliberately underestimating the time needed to try their cases, and the Chief Administrative Judge had issued a "Notice to Attorneys," threatening sanctions against offending attorneys. I imposed a small fine upon two attorneys in two cases who appeared to have substantially underestimated the time required to try their cases. Both appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that I had overstepped my authority. After reading their opinion, I agreed with them completely and wrote letters of apology to the attorneys."

Judge Rivers listed his employment while serving as a judge as follows:

"While serving as Family Court Judge, I taught Legal Environment of Business and Business Law at the College of Charleston from 1981 until approximately 1986. From 1985 until 1993, I wrote a column of general interest in the Charleston Evening Post (later the Charleston Post and Courier). The column was popular, and it eventually became a weekly feature. I was required to stop writing the column when I ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress in 1993."

Judge Rivers listed his unsuccessful candidacies as follows:

"(a)   In 1983, I ran for one of the original seats on the South Carolina Court of Appeals. I dropped out of the race after the balloting had begun, in favor of Franklin Robson, who dropped out in favor of Bob Stoddard, who was defeated by the incumbent Bert Goolsby.

(b)   In 1988, I ran for the Circuit bench against William Howard, who was elected to replace Lawrence Richter, who resigned.

(c)   In 1991, I contemplated running for the Circuit bench, for the seat now occupied by Vic Rawl. I withdrew after speaking to various legislators and long before any balloting.

(d)   In 1994, I was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination to U.S. Congress from the First Congressional District. The race was won by the smart candidates who spent the most money."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Rivers' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Low Country Citizens Committee found Judge Rivers to be "qualified and recommended. Somewhat 'offbeat.' Not sure if that is a plus or a minus."

Judge Rivers is married to Rebecca Jane Benton. He has three children: Lucius Mendel Rivers, III, age 24, production manager; James Abyad Rivers, age 22, student; and Charles Francis Middleton Rivers, age 21, student.

Judge Rivers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar, continuously since 1972;

(b)   Charleston County Bar Association since 1993;

(c)   Family Law Section of South Carolina Bar since 1993."

Judge Rivers provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   South Carolina Society, 72 Meeting Street, Charleston, SC 29401;

(b)   Preservation Society of Charleston, 147 King Street, Charleston, SC 29401;

(c)   National Audubon Society, 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003;

(d)   Poetry Society of South Carolina, P.O. Box 99, Charleston, SC 29402;

(e)   Humane Society of the United States, New York, NY."

James A. Turner
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Turner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Turner was born on July 28, 1957. He is 43 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Turner provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Turner.

Judge Turner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Turner reported that he has made approximately $40.00 in campaign expenditures for postage.

Judge Turner testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Turner testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Turner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Turner described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Landlord Tenant CLE - April 14, 2000;

(b)   Ethics Roundup, Professor Freeman - April 2000;

(c)   Ethics, SC Bar Annual Meeting, Hilton Head - June 2000;

(d)   DUI: S.C. Case Law and Opinions - November 16, 2000;

(e)   MUSC: Substance Abuse Seminar - December 2000;

(f)   Update on Recent Law - February 17, 1999;

(g)   Contracts - June 18, 1999;

(h)   Torts - April 14, 1998;

(i)     Evidence - June 9, 1998;

(j)     Jury Selection and Instruction - August 6, 1998;

(k)   Civil Trial Procedures - April 4, 1997;

(l)     Fourth Amendment Issues - October 6, 1997;

(m)   Virtue and Vice (Ethics) - November 6, 1997;

(n)   Update on Recent Law - February 29, 1996."

Judge Turner reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Orientation for new magistrates at the criminal justice academy in the area of conducting preliminary hearings;

(b)   Presenter at Tips From the Bench seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar, lecturing in the areas of civil and criminal practice in Magistrate Court;

(c)   Presenter at College of Charleston CLE for local attorneys on the topic of practice procedure and substantive law in Magistrate Court (civil);

(d)   Panel participant at yearly seminar on landlord-tenant issues sponsored by local apartment managers."

Judge Turner reported that he has published the following:

"The New Magistrate Court Rules, The Bar Tab (1998)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Turner did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Turner did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Turner has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Turner was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Turner reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Turner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Turner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Turner was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

Judge Turner provided the following account of his legal experience:

"1990-1991   Stucky and Kobrovsky-general practice, including insurance defense and Section 1983 actions;

1991         Rosen, Rosen, and Hagood-school voting rights;

1991-1994     Private Practice-general practice;

1992-1995     Magistrate Preliminary Hearing Court;

1994-present   Magistrate Small Claims Court.

I have served as a judicial officer for the past five years hearing both civil and criminal cases. I noted in responding to question 17 the percentage of my law practice that was devoted to either civil or criminal areas.

Specifically, I have conducted preliminary hearings and made rulings concerning all areas of substantive criminal law. I was selected as the first Magistrate to hear transfer cases in Charleston County.

Presently, I serve and have served for seven years, as a Charleston County Small Claims Court Judge. This position has enabled me to hear jury and non-jury matters in almost all areas of civil law. I hear cases consistently on remand from Circuit Court.

Finally, I have been recommended to serve as Special Circuit Court Judge in our circuit to assist in handling present cases on the docket."

The Commission was impressed with this recommendation for service as a special circuit court judge. Further, it noted that Judge Turner's service and experience as a magistrate would be beneficial to service as a circuit coqrt judge.

Judge Turner reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   N/A

(b)   State:     N/A"

Judge Turner reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     40%

(b)   Criminal:   20%

(c)   Domestic:   40%"

Judge Turner reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"Not applicable. (I handle both jury and non-jury trials as judge.)"

The following is Judge Turner's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Passailaigue v. McCants (Legal issues included Statute of Elizabeth, anti-assignment statute and fraudulent conveyance issues and included appeals.

(b)   Ellis v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Legal issues included Tort Claims Act and chain of custody issues)

(c)   Lester v. Pasjon (The case concerned the litigation of a partnership dissolution)

(d)   Cade v. Guerreri (Breach of contract case which featured technical testimony on construction)

(e)   State v. In the interest of Eric Milligan (Defense of a thirteen year old on cocaine charges and other matters)"

Judge Turner provided that he has held the following judicial positions:

"Preliminary Hearing Court, 1992 - 1995, appointed;

Small Claims Court, 1994 - present, appointed."

Judge Turner reported that he has engaged in the private practice of law while serving as a judge.

Judge Turner reported that he has been a candidate for the circuit court bench in 1996, 1998, and 1999.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Turner's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Low Country Citizens Committee found Judge Turner to be "qualified and recommended."

Judge Turner is married to Janice Kirishtein. He has one child: Abigail, age 23 months.

Judge Turner reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Bar Association.

Judge Turner provided the following regarding membership in civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"I do not belong to these organizations because I have been a judicial officer for the past five years to avoid any potential conflict."

Charles W. Whiten, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Whiten meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Mr. Whiten was born on September 17, 1944. He is 56 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Mr. Whiten provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Whiten.

Mr. Whiten demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Whiten reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Whiten testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Whiten testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Whiten to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Whiten described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   03/05/96 Medical Malpractice 6.0 hrs.

12/06/96 Family Ct. Bench/Bar Updates 6.0 hrs.

(b)   11/14/97 Criminal Practice in SC 6.5 hrs.

11/21/97   Breaking the Ties that Bind

(Effective Intervention Strategies

with Violent Relationships) 5.0 hrs.

12/09/97 Ethics for Family Law Practitioners 3.25 hrs.

12/12/97 The Masters in Trial 7.5 hrs.

(c)   10/02/98 Traffic/DUI 6.5 hrs.

12/19/98   Ethical Dilemmas Common Problems

and Not-So-Common Solutions   6.0 hrs.

(d)   01/29/99 PC's from the Inside Out 6.0 hrs.

08/20/99 Paralegal Practice in SC 6.0 hrs.

11/19/99 Drug Litigation in SC 6.83 hrs.

(e)   3/10/00 Solo & Small Office 6.0 hrs.

09/22/00 Issues in Domestic Violence 6.0 hrs.

11/10/00 10th Annual Criminal Practice in SC 6.25 hrs."

Mr. Whiten reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Whiten reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   The Republican Manifesto, a novel published by 1st Books Library, December 1999."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Whiten did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Whiten did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Whiten has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Whiten was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Whiten reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Mr. Whiten reported that he has served in the military from "September 1969-February 1976 US Air Force Captain; Honorable Discharge-Non-active."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Whiten appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Whiten appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Whiten was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

Mr. Whiten reported that his work history since law school has been:

"1969-1976:   Prosecuted and defended numerous criminal cases while with U.S. Air Force JAG; was Chief of Claims at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina; advised base commanders on military related issues including impact of martial law imposed by Ferdinand Marcos in The Republic of the Philippines; advised military members and defendants on legal issues; staffed remote Air Force legal office in Tahkli, Thailand; advised returning POW's on legal issues;

1976-1978:     Worked as an associate with Harold Lowery Law Firm, Anderson, S.C.;

1978-Present:   I have been a sole practitioner with a general practice with primary emphasis on Civil Law, Family Law, Criminal Law, Social Securitx, Estates, Elder Law, Landlord & Tenant Law and other legal questions of a general nature. In the past, I have also practiced in the area of Workers' Compensation (including representation of clients in byssinosis cases) and have handled several bankruptcy cases in Bankruptcy Court.

1979-1984:     I served as Public Defender for Anderson County.   The character of my practice has changed very little over the years and retains its general nature."

Mr. Whiten also provided:

"In the last twenty-five years, I have represented thousands of criminal defendants for every criminal offense from traffic violations to capital murder. I served as Public Defender for Anderson County from 1979-1984 and represented Defendants in three capital murder trials during that period.

In the last five years, I have served as Chief Counsel on two capital murder cases and represented dozens of criminal defendants in other General Sessions cases ranging from trafficking in drugs to DUI. Some of the issues involved in these cases were: search and seizure; voluntariness of confessions; admissibility of evidence obtained by forensic specialists; credibility of psychiatric and psychological expert testimony; accuracy of judge's charges, and sentencing considerations.
I have handled civil cases in torts, contract disputes, products liability, medical malpractice, unfair trade practices, and other cases involving issues usually associated with a Plaintiff's practice. In the past five years, I have appeared in the Court of Common Pleas as sole counsel for Plaintiffs in automobile accident cases, slip and fall cases, contract disputes, and insurance claims. I have also appeared to represent a few Defendants in insurance claims including subrogation and rate issues."

Mr. Whiten reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Once (excluding Social Security disability hearings before Administrative Law Judge)

(b)   State:       Fifty to Sixty"

Mr. Whiten reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     25%

(b)   Criminal:   25%

(c)   Domestic:   25%

(d)   Other:     25%"

Mr. Whiten reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     60%

(b)   Non-jury:   40%"

Mr. Whiten provided that, "I served as sole counsel in all trials in which I appeared other than death penalty trials and on both death penalty cases, I served as Chief Counsel."

The following is Mr. Whiten's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Timothy Wayne Brown (not reported) This case involved a fourteen-year-old child charged with murder. Timothy Wayne Brown was one of the youngest defendants ever charged with murder in the State of South Carolina. The case began in Family Court and was removed to General Sessions Court for trial of the juvenile as an adult. Issues included "when is a juvenile to be treated as an adult for criminal prosecution". This case helped establish appropriate guidelines for removal of juvenile cases to the Court of General Sessions. Another issue in the case was the mens rea of the child, to wit: was a fourteen-year-old child capable of forming the malice aforethought necessary for a conviction of murder? The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter, an offense not requiring malice aforethought.

(b)   Gerald Williams v. G.R.C., Inc.; Ig-Lo Products, et al. (not reported) This was a products liability suit brought against G.R.C., Inc., the manufacturer of a can of starter fluid containing ethyl ether. The plaintiff was set afire when the can exploded as he started his riding lawnmower. Issues involved federal laws and regulations allegedly preempting imposition of liability under South Carolina statutory or common law in respect to the type and design of the container used by the Defendants to distribute the ethyl ether; adequate safety warnings; chemical properties of the ethyl ether; standards for admissibility of expert testimony, and the level of damages to someone with first and second degree burns. The case was settled favorably to the Plaintiff just before trial was to begin.

(c)   State v. Norris, 285 S.C. 86, 328 S.E.2d 339 (1985). This was a capital murder case involving the aggravating circumstance of criminal sexual assault in the first degree. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. At the trial, I intentionally waived voir dire of the jury venire and secured an agreement by the solicitor not to conduct voir dire. My purpose in waiving voir dire was to attempt to obtain a jury that was not death penalty oriented. The tactic was approved on appeal, the court ruling that 16-3-20 (D) grants a capital defendant the "right" for such examination, but does not mandate its exercise and agreeing that voir dire could be waived. In that case, a detailed questionnaire was submitted to all prospective jurors. This case was one of the first cases in which such a questionnaire was allowed and helped establish the current procedure of submitting detailed questionnaires to jury venire in capital cases. The case also was the first to establish the right of a defendant to both testify as a witness and to make a closing statement to the jury in a capital case. The case also dealt with the restriction on reference to parole eligibility upon a conviction (which was the law at the time) and lead to the current status of the law on reference to parole eligibility. The court also ruled that the statutory aggravating circumstance of a prior conviction for murder can only apply to "murder" as defined in South Carolina law. At the trial, the State submitted as a statutory aggravating circumstance appellant's second-degree murder conviction in Virginia which did not contain the critical element of malice aforethought as required in South Carolina. The case was remanded for re-sentencing and at the re-sentencing, John Foster Norris received a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

(d)   State v. Angela Taylor, 323 S.C. 162, 473 S.E.2d 817 (1996) In this case, defendant was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine. At the trial, the judge instructed the jury that "The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was at least criminally negligent". On appeal, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The case was never retried and was dismissed. The case was significant in that it established that a person charged with trafficking in methamphetamine must be found to act "knowingly" and that negligence is a lower standard than knowledge.

(e)   George Tucker v. Covil Insulation Co., Inc., et al. (not reported) This was a workers' compensation case in which Mr. Tucker incurred mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs, from breathing asbestos some 20 years before he was pronounced terminally ill. I was able to acquire workers' compensation benefits for Mr. Tucker's wife after he died by preserving pieces of Mr. Tucker's lung and acquiring testimony from a pathologist at Duke University that Mr. Tucker had asbestos in his lung lining which was the cause of his mesothelioma. Mrs. Tucker later received additional amounts from national asbestos litigation. The case was significant in that it was one of the asbestos cases that strongly supported the link between remote asbestos exposure and terminal cancer."

The following is Mr. Whiten's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Christopher M. Jordan and Betty Branyon v. Narcissus Payton, 305 S.C. 537, 409 S.E.2d 739 (1991) This case was in the Court of Appeals for South Carolina. Date of decision was September 23, 1991.

(b)   State v. James B. King, 306 S.C. 335, 412 S.E.2d 375 (1991) This case was in the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Date of decision was December 2, 1991."

Mr. Whiten provided that, "I ran unsuccessfully for Anderson County Council in 1978. Also, I applied for the position of Judge of the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat One in 1998, but withdrew when Circuit Judge H. Dean Hall announced that he would be seeking that position."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Whiten's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee found Mr. Whiten to be "qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria established by the Commission."
Mr. Whiten is married to Carla Renee Whiten. He has two children and two step-children: Brandice Camille Whiten, age 30, projectionist; Matthew William Whiten, age 26, stand-up comedian/waiter; Christopher Allen Davis, age 18, student at Tri County Tech; Harold Marshall Davis, age 16, student at Westside High School.

Mr. Whiten reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   I am a member of the Anderson County Bar Association;

(b)   I have held no offices or titles with the Anderson County Bar Association."

Mr. Whiten provided "I am not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social or fraternal organizations and have not been in the last five years. I have not received any professional honors, awards or other forms of recognition in the last five years."

Mr. Whiten additionally provided:

"I have been engaged in the practice of law in Anderson County since 1976. From 1978 to the present, I have been a sole practitioner with a general practice at my current address for the last 22 years. During that time, I have represented 897 litigants in civil actions, 1,013 domestic litigants, 214 Social Security claimants, 148 Workers Compensation claimants and have handled 195 estates, 1,041 real estate transactions, including closings, and have prepared 1,317 Wills, Powers of Attorney, corporate charters, licenses of various forms or other legal documents not falling into one of the above categories. I have also represented approximately 4,000 criminal defendants, including criminal defendants assigned to me as Public Defender from 1979 through 1984. I have appeared as Chief Counsel in five death penalty cases and as Assistant Counsel in one other death penalty case. I was also successful in avoiding a death penalty prosecution for a client charged with the murder of a police officer through an agreement with the solicitor's office involving a substantial assistance agreement. I have appeared in Bankruptcy Court and before various other administrative agencies. I have represented students before school boards and a politician in an election dispute.

I also served as deacon at Central Presbyterian Church, have taught Sunday School at that church, served as legal advisor for the Council on Aging in Anderson County for several years, including a period in which I served on the committee to elect a new chairman to the Council on Aging. I prepared the original charter for the Good Neighbor Cupboard in Anderson County (established to provide free food for the indigent) and monitored its initial steps. I am familiar with the political workings of Anderson County as well as the educational processes and I believe I have served my community well the past 25 years. I am seeking the position of circuit court judge in hopes of continuing my community service at a different level. I have achieved all I hoped to achieve professionally in my law practice and am prepared to serve the remainder of my legal career as a circuit court judge."

Roger M. Young
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Young meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Young was born on February 15, 1960. He is 41 years old and a resident of North Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Young provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Young.

Judge Young demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Young reported that he has made $200.84 in campaign expenditures for the following:

"12-17-00 Supplies, Office Max     54.06

12-18-00 Copies, Office Max     53.28

12-19-00 Stamps, USPS     93.50"

Judge Young testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Young testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Young to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Young described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

Date         Sponsor         Class                         Hours

05/19/96     NJC         Logic for Judges                     12.50

05/22/96     NJC         Opinion Writing                   12.83

06/19/96     SC Bar       Trial Practice Tune-Up               3.0

07/19/96     SC Bar       ADR Basics                       8.0

10/18/96     SC Bar       Practice Before MIE                 6.50

01/10/97     CC Bar     Ethics                             3.0

05/18/97     NJC         Basic Evidence                   23.83

07/11/97     CC Bar     Insurance Coverage

During Hurricane Season             2.0

09/19/97     CC Bar     Real Estate Update                   0.8

01/23/98     SC Bar       Annual Criminal Law Update         6.50

03/01/98     NJC         Advanced Evidence               24.17

03/20/98     SC Bar       Rules-SC Civil Procedure             6.0

06/11/98     SC Bar       Developments in Real Estate Law       6.0

06/21/98     NJC       Managing the Complex Civil Case       26.0

10/09/98     SC Bar     Practice Before MIE                   6.0

03/26/99     SC Bar     Mechanic's Liens                     5.67

04/12/99     NJC       Judicial Writing                     28.25

05/07/99     CC Bar   Real Estate Update                     0.75

06/18/99     SC Bar     SC Environmental Law                 6.75

07/12/99     NJC       General Jurisdiction                 82.75

02/27/00     NJC       Financial Statements in Court         13.50

03/01/00     NJC       Business Issues                     13.08

10/13/00     SC Bar     Business Torts                       6.0

01/26/01     SC Bar     Annual Criminal Law Update           6.0

In addition to these CLE classes, I took the following classes in the MJS program that I did not apply for CLE credit. These were graduate school classes that lasted 2-4 weeks. With the one exception noted below, each class ran from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. four days a week and required at least two papers per class. The History and Theory of Jurisprudence class was a night class that ran for four weeks. It met from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. I took it two weeks at a time over two summers while I was taking classes during the day.

Summer 99/00     UNR History and Theory of

Jurisprudence                       3 credits

Spring 99           UNR Conducting the Trial             2 credits

(one-week class, test instead of paper)

Spring 00           UNR Law and the Social and

Behavioral Sciences                 3 credits

Summer 98         UNR Public Policy in the Courts       3 credits

Summer 00         UNR Criminology                   3 credits"

Judge Young reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Speaker, "Practice Before Masters-in-Equity," Bridge the Gap, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and the Supreme Court of South Carolina, March 13, 2001.

(b)   Speaker, "Recent Judicial Decisions Involving Tax Sales," County Auditors, Treasurers and Tax Collectors Academy, February 8, 2001.

(c)   Moderator, "Business Torts, Accounting & Damages," South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division CLE, October 13, 2000.

(d)   Speaker, "Practice Before Masters-in-Equity," Bridge the Gap, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and the Supreme Court of South Carolina, May 23, 2000.

(e)   Speaker, "Law of Tax Sales," Charleston County Bar Association Real Estate Section, March 7, 2000.

(f)   Speaker, "Recent Judicial Decisions Hnvolving Tax Sales," County Auditors, Treasurers and Tax Collectors Academy, February 3, 2000.

(g)   Speaker, "Twelve by Twelve" CLE, Charleston County Bar Association, December 16, 1999.

(h)   Speaker, "Equitable Remedies," South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division CLE, October 8, 1999.

(i)   Moderator, Mechanic's Liens CLE, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division, March 26, 1999.

(j)   Speaker, "Practice Before Masters-in-Equity," Bridge the Gap, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and the Supreme Court of South Carolina, March 9, 1999, May 18, 1999.

(k)   Speaker, "Law on Tax Sales," Practice Before Masters-in-Equity and Special Referees CLE, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division, October 9, 1998.

(l)   Speaker, "Law on Tax Sales," Practice Before Masters-in-Equity and Special Referees CLE, South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division, October 18, 1996.

(m)   I have taught a business law class approximately two to three times a year for the past five years at the Charleston branch of Southern Wesleyan University.

(n)   I taught Introduction to Criminal Justice this past fall at Charleston Southern University.

(o)   I taught Real Estate Transactions II at the USC Law School in the Spring 2000 semester.

(p)   I have been a guest lecturer on several occasions at Professor Steve Spitz's classes at the law school."

Judge Young reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   The Law of Real Estate Tax Sales, South Carolina Lawyer, September/October 1999;

(b)   Tax Sales of Real Property in South Carolina, 1999 (South Carolina Bar-Continuing Legal Education Division);

(c)   "Sexually Violent Predator Acts," Community-Based Corrections, 4th ed. Wadsworth-Thomason Learning (2000);

(d)   "Using Social Science to Assess the Need for Jury Reform in South Carolina," 52 S.C. Law. Rev. 135 (Fall 2000)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Young has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Young was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Young reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Young provided:

"I was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1990 and 1992.

I was appointed to serve as interim City Attorney for the City of North Charleston from January to April 1995, and continued to handle legal matters for the City until I began service as Master-in-Equity."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Young appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Young appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Young was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.

Judge Young gave the following account of his legal experience:

"When I graduated from law school in 1983, I became an associate with Howard R. Chapman, P.A. Mr. Chapman died in December 1984. From then on I was a sole practitioner. My practice was a general practice handling primarily civil matters including litigation, real estate, and some criminal practice. I became part-time Municipal Court judge for the City of North Charleston in 1988 and served there until 1990 when I resigned to run for the S.C. House of Representatives. I was elected to the House in 1990 and served two terms. I decided not to seek re-election in 1994. I was elected to be the Master-in-Equity for Charleston County in 1995 and began service on January 1, 1996. Since it is a full-time judgeship, I closed my law office in 1995. I have been serving as Master for Charleston continuously since 1996, and have had a concurrent appointment as a Special Circuit Court Judge by the Supreme Court since then.

In the first five to ten years of my practice I handled approximately a dozen criminals cases, including approximately a half-dozen felony matters, several of which went to trial. After about five years of practice I began to handle primarily civil matters, but I would still handle criminal matters on appointment. When I was a Municipal Court judge my jurisdiction was exclusively criminal. I heard mainly summary trials, but I would usually preside over jury trials one week a month. Most of these jury trials were DUIs and simple assault. I have continued to study criminal law and procedure since becoming Master-in-Equity. I have attended two of the Annual Criminal Law Update CLEs required for circuit court judges, including the most recent on January 26, 2001. In addition, I had two days of criminal procedure included in the General Jurisdiction class I took two years ago at the National Judicial College, and I took a two week long class in Criminology last summer as part of my graduate degree program at the University of Nevada-Reno.

As Master-in-Equity my jurisdiction is exclusively civil. Many people are of the misconception that the Master hears only cases involving real estate. In fact, it is only a part of what we do, at least those of us who are full-time. A lot of the litigation I hear is business-related, including breach of contract, insurance claims, unfair trade practice, partnership claims and accounting, and complex business litigation. All of it is non-jury. Once a matter is referred to a Master for a trial, the Master has all the jurisdiction and powers as a circuit court judge sitting non-jury. Coupled with my appointment as a Special Circuit Court Judge, that means I hear every type of motion in every type of civil case, including those involving jury matters. I hear motions on jury and non-jury cases for the circuit court on Fridays and on an as-needed basis throughout the week.

Obviously, I have not had any jury trials in the past five years since I became Master. However, I did try jury cases in my private practice and as a Municipal Court Judge. In addition, I have studied jury trial practice at the National Judicial College and wrote my Masters thesis on reforming jury practice in South Carolina."

Judge Young reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   3

(b)   State:     20"

Judge Young reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     90%

(b)   Criminal:   5%

(c)   Domestic:   5%"

Judge Young reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     50%

(b)   Non-jury:   50%"

"I presume this means the case was tried and the matter was submitted to a judge for a verdict since non-jury matters don't ever go to a jury."

Judge Young provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Young's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   C-21 v. C-21 Action Realty. This was a federal district court case. As a young associate I was given significant responsibilities in preparing and assisting in a two-day injunction hearing against one of the largest law firms in the state.

(b)   State v. Williams. This was ABWIK and Armed Robbery case. I was sole counsel for one of the co-defendants. It was a three-day trial in circuit court.

(c)   AMIC v. Brown. Case involved violation of restrictive covenants and had interesting issues involving interpretation of covenants, waiver and laches.

(d)   Altman v. Altman. Case involved a dispute between a father and son over an alleged oral agreement involving real estate, construction trusts and parol evidence.

(e)   CMCT v. Bechtel. Case involved a multi-million dollar contract claim against the world's largest construction company."

"I was appointed Municipal Court Judge for the City of North Charleston from 1988 to 1990. My jurisdiction was exclusively criminal and at the time had jurisdictional limits of 30 days in jail and $200 in fines.

I was elected by the General Assembly to be the Master-in-Equity for Charleston County in 1995 and began service on January 1, 1996. Once a case is appointed to the Master, I have the same authority to hear a case as a circuit court judge sitting non-jury. I have also been appointed by the Supreme Court to be a Special Circuit Court Judge for Charleston County for the past five years. As Special Circuit Court Judge, my jurisdiction is to hear all motions in jury and non-jury matters, hear appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, accept Grand Jury returns and hear and approve settlement of minor's interest and wrongful death and survivor action settlements."

Judge Young reported the following as his most significant orders:

"(a)   Kuznick v. Bees Ferry, 96-CP-10-4495. Affirmed in part, reversed in part by the S.C. Court of Appeals, 2000 WL 1409774;

(b)   Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. South Carolina, 96-CP-10-1933;

(c)   Strong v. Sand Castle Builders, 99-CP-10-2920;

(d)   City of Folly Beach v. SCDHEC, OCCRM, 99-CP-10-403;

(e)   Carter v. Patel, 97-CP-15-235."

"I have taught a class in Business Law two to three times a year for Southern Wesleyan University's Charleston campus for the past five years.

I taught a class in Real Estate Transactions II for the USC Law School in the Spring 2000 semester. I reported to Dean Phil Lacy.

I taught a class in Introduction to Criminal Justice for Charleston Southern University in the Fall 2000 semester. The department head is Dr. Elizabeth McConnell."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Young's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Committee found Judge Young to be "qualified and recommended."

Judge Young is married to Janice M. Young. He has two children. Grace Lee Young, 13, and Roger M. Young, 11.

Judge Young reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Charleston County Bar;

(c)   American Judicature Society;

(d)   American Judges Association."

Judge Young provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Board of Visitors, Charleston Southern University;

(b)   Charleston Southern University Distinguished Alumnus of the Year, 1998;

(c)   Order of the Palmetto presented by Gov. Carroll Campbell, 1994;

(d)   Service to Mankind Award by Sertoma International, 2000;

(e)   Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Charleston, 1992;

(f)   Honorary Kentucky Colonel by commission of Gov. Brereton C. Jones, 1993."

Judge Young additionally reported:

"I enjoy every aspect of being a judge. I have dedicated my life's work to improving the judiciary and the legal system. I have been especially mindful of the need to have judges on the bench who are not only qualified, but who exhibit fairness and equal justice under the law. To this end, I remind myself at every trial that the case I am presiding over is probably the most important thing in the parties' lives. I know that I cannot rule in such a way as to make everyone happy, but hopefully I leave the parties feeling that they received a fair trial. One of the highest compliments I have ever received was when a lawyer against whose client I had ruled was quoted in the newspaper as saying that while he was disappointed I had ruled against his client, he thought I gave his client a fair trial.

One of the main reasons I wish to move to the circuit court is to continue my research in the area of jury reform. Judges have a duty to improve the legal system. My research has shown me that there are areas in which we can do better in South Carolina to improve our system of jury trials. Jury trials are the cornerstone of our country. The right to a jury trial was considered vitally important to the Founding Fathers of this country, so much so that they memorialized it in our Constitution. My particular area of research is currently in the area of improving juror comprehension of jury instructions; however, there are other areas that I believe we should look at as well. Chief Justice Toal has spoken to me about this subject and she intends to launch a jury reform effort in South Carolina. Regardless of whether I am elected to the circuit court, I intend to help in this effort."

CONCLUSION

The following candidates were found qualified:
Judge Deadra L. Jefferson ..........Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Judge L. Mendel Rivers, Jr. ........Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Judge James A. Turner ...............Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Judge Roger M. Young ..............Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr................Cir. Ct., 10th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Judge J.C. Nicholson, Jr............Cir. Ct., 10th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Charles W. Whiten, Jr. .............Cir. Ct., 10th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
C. Reuben Goude .....................Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Seat 1
Steven H. John .........................Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Seat 1

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:10 A.M., on motion of Senator RYBERG, the Senate adjourned to meet next Monday, May 14, 2001, at 1:00 P.M.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 1:19 P.M.